computer.wait_for

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It explains that the tool blocks until a screen change occurs and defines the expectation semantics. However, it does not disclose timeout behavior, what happens when no change occurs, or whether the tool returns any result, leaving some uncertainty for the agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, then gives compact parameter semantics, then gives usage context. Every sentence contributes uniquely useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple waiting tool, the description covers the main expectation types and typical usage. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return values or timeout failure behavior, which an agent would reasonably need to know when deciding whether the tool succeeded. The missing timeout semantics are the main gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for 'expectation' and 'value', explaining the window-title and OCR-text matching behavior. It does not explain 'timeout_s', leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name and default value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Wait until something changes on screen') and the resource being acted on. It also lists the three expectation types, making the tool's scope concrete. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling observation tools like computer.observe or computer.get_ui_tree, but 'wait' conveys a blocking operation, which separates it enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: 'Use after actions to await UI reactions instead of blind sleeps.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate and what it should replace. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it doesn't earn a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.